Spencer Dawkins wrote:
While not even dreaming of trying to speak for John, what I understood
his point to be was that our process is, and needs to be, more than a
set of rules.
...
On this particular topic, I've been really dismayed that we've gotten so
far into the weeds on what was obviously (to me) an attempt to do the
right thing - provide example domain names - that is now morphing into a
set of rules.
+1
Perhaps the most important lesson from the last few years of diligent effort to
create and write detailed rules is to make clear that that is not where IETF
problems reside.
Yes, we need good documentation. Far better than we used to have. But that
does not mean that the documents need to list microscopic rules.
The reality we have seen is that folks don't remember the rules, don't follow
the fine-grained details and the details from one rule to the next are starting
to conflict.
What we need are documents that define scope, goals, principals, and the like.
The application of these more-basic constructs needs to demonstrate careful
thought and compelling need. And they need to demonstrate it with careful
documentation.
Note a continuing disparity: What is significant about documentation of a
decision for an appeal is that they usually are careful to describe the
situation and careful to provide the basis for the decision. Publicly.
This is in marked contrast the handling of something like a Discuss. Much more
modest requirements for documentation and publication.
So...
Fewer rules. More concepts and rationale.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf